Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 5/19/2022
WILBRAHAM – In a meeting that lasted just over four hours, roughly 200 Wilbraham residents voted on 45 warrant articles, approving most – but not all. One article – saved for second to last – involving the adoption of partisan elections for Wilbraham elected officials, despite voting for non-partisan elections in the prior year, evoked significant discussion.
Article 44 was listed on the warrant as the adoption of partisan elections for Wilbraham elected officials. Richard Howell presented the article, explaining that the articles motion was to “rescind and repeal the previously enacted special legislation that provided for non-partisan elections in Wilbraham’s elected officials.”
At last years’ May 10, 2021 Annual Town Meeting, a similar article was up for discussion – the warrant article on the 2021 Annual Town Meeting Warrant called for the adoption on non-partisan elections for town officials.
Speaking to the article, Howell gave a brief history of voting in Wilbraham, dating back to the 1800s. He acknowledged that on May 10, 2021, when the motion to have non-partisan elections was passed, it was at the end of “another lengthy town meeting” and the “vast majority of citizens that attended had left” and that they “barely had a quorum.” He said that the petitioners, including himself, heard from several Wilbraham residents who left the 2021 meeting early as well as people who “voted for the motion and later regretted it” and expressed concerns to the petitioners about this change.
Continuing, Howell said that most residents “do not know who their elected officials are.” He indicated that having partisan elections would “help identify [who officials are].”
He explained that the petitioners were coming back with an article to reinstall partisan elections as many residents were not aware of the change to nonpartisan elections. Howell also said many residents asked why they were not allowed to host political caucuses of any kind – as with this adoption, they can have parties meet, but cannot host a caucus formally to nominate a candidate.
Turning to public comment, resident Donald Flannery said he was against the article, and that he thought it was wrong to have “two teams,” referencing the Democratic and Republican party. Wilbraham resident and Chairman of the Wilbraham Democratic Town Committee, Linda Dagradi, laughed as she approached the microphone, stating she does not often agree with Flannery, but “he’s got me on this one,” which was met with laughter and applause. She continued to explain that at the May 2021 meeting, the town voted for change, and to be as inclusive as possible.
Michael Squindo, resident, explained he was in favor of non-partisan elections, and that he noticed more political engagement during the candidate process in the town’s latest election. He stated he did not support the article.
In favor of the article, Debbie Reavey questioned why the town was “reinventing the wheel” and that “voting in partisan elections has worked for years.”
Another resident as well as part-time employee of the town, Gina Kahn, director of safe schools/healthy students of the Hampden Wilbraham Regional School District, said that she “really does not need [her] candidates to be presorted for me,” and that she thinks voters “reserve the right to get to know who they are voting for and what they stand for as individuals.”
James Burke – who initiated the petition – spoke at the meeting, stating that he “asked the community to reconsider” the vote they took in 2021. He explained he felt the “two party system that we have seems to work well.”
Discussion wrapped up in a vote, with the article failing, with 125 voters opposed, and 60 voters in favor.
Article 42 – Recall of Elected Officials
Article 42 was introduced as a bylaw amendment that would provide for the recall of elected officials in Wilbraham by registered voters. A petition for recall with 200 signatures would need to be submitted to the town clerk, provided there is a “lawful reason.” After the petition is complete, a number of signatures equal to 75 percent of voters in the previous annual town election must be collected within 30 days. Once signatures were verified, if the official did not resign within seven days, an election must be called for 60 to 90 days in the future.
Squindo spoke against the article, stating that he “saw nothing publicly discussed” about it, and noted that 75 percent of voters from the prior annual town election seemed like a “low bar” for a number of residents that could recall an official. He said, by his math, this would be roughly 750 to 1,000 residents.
Dagradi also spoke against the article, explaining that she feels recall options “are called elections.” She said that if elected officials vote their conscience and people do not like it, they can choose to not vote for that candidate in the next election. She stated that “recalls are divisive.”
Resident and Chair of the Community Preservation Committee John Broderick questioned if the town needs a recall provision. He then said that the article presented to the town “looked a lot like Longmeadow’s [recall provision] because that’s where it came from.” He indicated that a range of signatures would be considered 75 percent – anywhere as low as 405 signatures to 1,310 signatures based on election numbers from recent years.
Finance Committee Chair and resident Marc Ducey encouraged residents to vote the article down, stating that a recall would only make it more challenging to recruit people to run for elected office in town.
Wrapping up discussion, resident John Haggerty said that this article was “creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”
Article 42 failed.
Article 19 – Budget
The town’s fiscal year 2023 (FY23) operating budget was approved at $47,161,984. Ducey noted that the town is $1.4 million under the levy limit, with the town in a “very strong financial position.” Ducey said last year the town used some of the money in the stabilization account to “pay down the senior center so the debt exclusion was less.” He shared that the towns stabilization account has roughly $902,000, and the capital stabilization account has about $740,000 in it. He noted that the Wilbraham Middle School roof project came in under budget, and money was returned to the stabilization account. At the start of this fiscal year, Ducey said, the town had $3.2 million in free cash, which was higher than normal, largely due to “COVID[-19] dollars.” Ducey said this free cash was used for capital planning, including building maintenance, new vehicles and more.
Wrapping up the town’s budget discussion, Ducey reminded residents that Minnechaug is now 10 years old, and that building maintenance is top of mind. He noted Hampden Wilbraham Regional School District (HWRSD) enrollment “continues to decline,” with Hampden’s portion decreasing faster than Wilbraham’s, leaving Hampden with a roughly 20 percent responsibility to the HWRSD and Wilbraham with 80 percent. Ducey did state that they are beginning to look into grant funding and other opportunities.
Aaron Osborne, director of finance, operations and human resources for the HWRSD, shared the school district’s proposed budget with residents. He stated the FY22 budget was $50,281,358, and the FY23 proposed budget came in at $50,981,226 – an increase of $699,868, or 1.39 percent. He said this was a needs-based budget, explaining that there were several obligatory cost increases, including health insurance increasing by 7 percent. Osborne also shared multiple savings the district was working to create, including the increase of school choice use, receiving circuit breaker revenue back from the state and more.
Following some discussion, Article 19 passed by majority vote.
Article 37 – CPA Project for Field Renovation at Minnechaug
When the discussion of the Minnechaug Regional High School (MRHS) field renovation came up, many residents appeared split on warrant Article 37, which asked if the town would vote to transfer $93,118 from the FY23 Community Preservation Undesignated Fund Balance to provide additional funding for the field renovation project at MRHS, originally approved at the May 2018 Annual Town Meeting. The warrant explanation noted that voting in favor of this article would provide additional funding to the field project. Broderick spoke to the article, stating that Hampden did vote in favor of their portion of the article at their Town Meeting, allocating $29,406 using Hampden Community Preservation Act funds.
Resident Michael Dane questioned why this was being brought to Town Meeting, claiming that when the issue of the field renovation was brought to Town Meeting in 2018, residents were told this would be a one-time fund request.
Squindo questioned if the work was unfinished at the field. Broderick shared that the project was completed, and the vendors have been paid, however there was a large outstanding debt on the project. Squindo asked who was responsible for the unfunded debt, to which HWRSD Athletic Director and resident Mike Roy said the town was not responsible, and that the booster club took the project on. He noted that 55 percent of the project was grassroots funded, and that an anonymous donor stepped up to pay off contractors, however when the coronavirus pandemic hit, the grassroots funding ceased.
When asked to state their positions on the article, several Finance Committee members explained they were not in favor of the article, referencing a similar point to Dane – when the article was originally brought to the town, it was presented as a one-time ask for funds.
Resident and member of the HWRSD School Committee Bill Bontempi encouraged residents to vote in favor of the article, referencing the anonymous resident who put a piece of property through a bank lien raising $350,000 to “bail the school district out and bail out the boosters, at least temporarily.” Bontempi said that the resident’s property was still held by the bank, owes money on it and the resident was still accumulating interest on it. “I think it would be a real shame for a citizen who has put as much forward as he could, for the residents of this community to not support him through this article,” he said.
After additional back and forth on both sides, ultimately, the article passed with majority approval.
Articles 1-15
Consent agenda items, Articles 1-15, were voted on in one fell swoop, as they involved several funds and budgets. The 15 articles passed at Town Meeting with little discussion.
Articles 16, 21, 28, 30
When it came to Articles 16, 21, 28 and 30, Town Moderator James Jurgens explained that these were “move no action,” votes. He noted that once a warrant is published, the warrant belongs to the community. However, there were a few cases where moving for no action “made sense,” as in the case of Article 16, there was no need for funding transfers. Therefore, the town did not need to vote on it.
Additional Articles
All other articles at the Annual Town Meeting passed by either majority vote, or 2/3 majority vote, depending on what the warrant article required.